Latest Entries »

Determining Which Bubble Teams Get In

Over the last few days, I’ve been listening plenty to “experts” talking about which teams are on the bubble, and which of those teams should get in.  They talk endlessly about RPI rankings, strength of schedule, wins against the RPI top-50, and the “eye-test,” which is basically their way of saying that nothing else matters if you look at 2 teams and feel strongly that one is better.

For what it’s worth, if I’m ever on the committee, here’s how I’ll decide:

  1. The teams’ records.  For whatever reason, this stat seems to get overlooked.  Of course, a team that plays in a lousy conference and puts up, say, 25 wins, has not accomplished as much as a team that plays in an excellent conference and puts up, say, 23 wins.  But, when talking about bubble teams, the record says a lot.  If a team puts up 23 wins in an excellent conference, that team probably isn’t on the bubble; it’s already in.  Thus, if we’re comparing 2 bubble teams, we don’t have to worry about an excellent team from an excellent conference getting bounced.  Once you take those teams out of consideration, the record is the best indicator of who should go.  If I’m choosing between 2 bubble teams, and one of them has 3 or more wins than the other, my analysis is just about over.
  2. Wins over RPI top-50.  Assuming that the teams have similar records, wins over the RPI top-50 is, in my opinion, the only other measurement that matters.  The team with more wins over the RPI top-50 should be in, assuming that the records are comparable.  I don’t care how many games they played against the RPI top-50, I care about the win total.  If the teams did not play the same number of games against the RPI top-50, that fact will be reflected in the records, which I would have already made the most important factor.  For example, if 1 team played 10 games against the RPI top-50, and the other only played 5, that fact would be reflected in their records.  In other words, if two teams have similar records, and one team is 3-7 against the RPI top 50 while the other is 1-2, I’m going with the team that is 3-7.
  3. The “eye test.”  When all else fails, go to the eye test.

Leave a Comment:

First-Ever Bids: I’m Over It

Earlier this week, the Wofford Terriers clinched a spot in the NCAA Tournament.  If you had asked me a week ago what Wofford Terriers were, I would have guessed that they were a type of pet, or that they were characters from Fraggle Rock that I had trouble remembering.  I most certainly would not have guessed that they were a Division I college basketball team.  But, they are.  And they’re in the NCAA tournament.  For the first time ever.

This is the type of “Cinderella Story” that I could have gotten into a few years ago; I used to enjoy hearing about teams that were going to the tournament for the first time.  Now?  Not so much.

I mean, the tournament has been going on for about 70 years.  65 teams get in every year.  I know that it hasn’t always been that way, but, still… there have been about 3,000 tournament slots available throughout history.  You’re telling me that there are still schools out there that have never gotten one of these slots?  Not one?  Ever?  What have they been doing all this time?

Is there a list of these schools somewhere, or am I just supposed to trust the guys on ESPN, when they tell me that a school is going to the tournament for the FIRST TIME EVER?  This feels like some type of media conspiracy to me, and I’ll need more proof before I believe it.

More importantly, even if I assume it’s true that Wofford College has never made the tournament before, am I supposed to get excited?  (By the way, is Wofford a college?  A university?  An on-line degree program?) Yes?  I’m supposed to get excited?  Just so the students at Wofford can watch their Terriers learn what a Kansas Jayhawk’s foot tastes like?

I might have gotten excited about this a few years ago, but not this year.  Getting a bid to this year’s tournament doesn’t seem like such a big deal to me.

After all… Cornell got one.

Leave a Comment: